Blau v. Lehman et al.
368 U.S. 403 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, a partnership is not liable for short-swing profits unless it has deputized a partner to represent its interests as a director of the issuer. A director-partner is liable only for his proportionate share of the firm's profits, not the entire amount realized by the partnership.
Facts:
- Joseph A. Thomas was a partner at Lehman Brothers, an investment banking and securities trading firm.
- Thomas also served as a director of Tide Water Associated Oil Company.
- While Thomas was a director, Lehman Brothers executed short-swing transactions (purchase and sale within six months) in 50,000 shares of Tide Water stock, earning a profit of $98,686.77.
- Lehman Brothers made its trading decision based on public announcements from Tide Water and did not consult with Thomas beforehand.
- Thomas was unaware of Lehman Brothers' intent to purchase the stock until after the initial purchases had been made.
- Upon learning of the transactions, Thomas immediately notified Lehman Brothers that he must be excluded from any risk, profit, or loss from the sale, and the firm accepted his disclaimer.
Procedural Posture:
- Blau, a stockholder of Tide Water, filed a derivative suit against Lehman Brothers and Joseph A. Thomas in a U.S. District Court to recover short-swing profits under § 16(b).
- The District Court, after a trial without a jury, found no evidence that Lehman Brothers had deputized Thomas and no evidence of the use of inside information.
- The District Court entered judgment against Thomas for his proportionate share of the profits ($3,893.41) but declined to hold Lehman Brothers liable or Thomas liable for the full amount of the firm's profits.
- Both parties appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment in all respects.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 impose strict liability for the full amount of a partnership's short-swing trading profits on either the partnership itself or one of its partners, when that partner is a director of the traded company but was not deputized by the partnership to represent its interests on the board?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Black
No. Section 16(b) does not impose liability on a partnership for short-swing profits merely because one of its partners sits on an issuer's board, unless that partner has been deputized to represent the partnership's interests. The language of Section 16(b) plainly limits liability to a 'director,' 'officer,' or 'beneficial owner,' and Lehman Brothers as an entity was none of these. While a partnership could function as a director through a deputized partner, the lower courts found as a matter of fact that no such deputization occurred here. Expanding liability based on policy arguments is a task for Congress, which previously considered and rejected proposals that would have made anyone receiving inside information liable. Furthermore, the statute requires disgorgement of profit 'realized by him,' meaning the director is only liable for his own share of the profits, not the entire amount earned by the partnership.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes. The partnership should be considered a 'director' for the purposes of Section 16(b) and held liable for the entire profit. The majority's decision effectively eliminates 'the great Wall Street trading firms' from the statute's reach, creating a massive loophole that defeats the Act's prophylactic purpose. The statute's definition of 'person' includes a partnership, so there is no reason a partnership cannot be a 'director.' The law must uphold the highest fiduciary standards, as described by Judge Cardozo as 'the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive.' Allowing partners to profit from the inside information available to a fellow partner who sits on a corporate board is a 'mutilation of the Act' that dilutes the fiduciary principle Congress intended to enforce.
Analysis:
This case establishes the 'deputization theory' of liability under Section 16(b), providing a pathway to hold an entity liable for the actions of its partner-director. However, by requiring a factual showing of deputization, the Court created a significant hurdle for plaintiffs and narrowed the statute's practical application to investment firms. The decision reflects a textualist approach, refusing to expand the statute's scope based on policy arguments and deferring to Congress for any changes. This ruling protects investment firms from automatic strict liability, forcing courts to inquire into the specific relationship between the director and their firm in each case.
